Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Foundations Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

About Wigner Friend's and Hardy's paradox in a Bohmian approach: a comment of `Quantum theory cannot' consistently describe the use of itself'

arXiv
Authors: Aurélien Drezet

Year

2018

Paper ID

23806

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

88

Citations

N/A

Abstract

This is an analysis of the recently published article `Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself' by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner \cite{1}. Here I decipher the paradox and analyze it from the point of view of de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable theory (i.e., Bohmian mechanics). I also analyze the problem from the perspective obtained by the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., the Bohrian interpretation) and show that both views are self consistent and do not lead to any contradiction with a `single-world' description of quantum theory.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2018 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • This is an analysis of the recently published article `Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself' by D.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #23806 #78817 Modelling Josephson Junctions w... #78814 Construction of isoscattering n... #78811 Autonomous Code Migration for Q... #78808 Experimental generation of asym...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.